Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 31
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`14 Civ. 2396 (PGG)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` - against -
`
`GOOGLE, INC., and YOUTUBE, LLC,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` i
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 31
`
`Table Of Contents
`
`B)  
`
`  
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1  
`I.  
`II.   BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 1  
`III.   CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES ............................................................................ 6  
`Claim Interpretation Focuses On The Meaning Of Terms To Persons Of Ordinary Skill
`A)  
`In The Art ......................................................................................................................... 6  
`Claims Are Definite Unless They Fail To Inform Those Skilled In The Art Of The
`Scope Of The Invention With Reasonable Certainty ....................................................... 7  
`IV.   AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS .............................................................................................. 8  
`V.   DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................................... 8  
`A)  
`"neighbor" "near neighbor" .............................................................................................. 8  
`(1)   Network-1’s Definition Comes Directly From The Patent Specification. ..................... 9  
`(2)   Defendants’ Proposed Construction Excludes The Preferred Embodiment. ............... 11  
`(3)   Extrinsic Evidence Also Confirms Network-1’s Construction. ................................... 12  
`B)  
`"non-exhaustive search" ................................................................................................. 13  
`(1)   The Intrinsic Evidence Confirms Network-1’s Construction Of "Non-Exhaustive
`Search" ......................................................................................................................... 15  
`(2)   Network-1’s Construction Conforms To The Understanding Of Those Skilled In The
`Art And The Extrinsic Evidence. ................................................................................. 16  
`(3)   Google’s Assertion Of Indefiniteness Cannot Be Supported ....................................... 18  
`(4)   Google’s Alternative Construction Does Not Comport With What One Skilled In The
`Art Would Understand “Non-Exhaustive Search” To Mean. ...................................... 19  
`"non-exhaustive neighbor search" .................................................................................. 20  
`C)  
`"associating" [an action with a work] ............................................................................ 20  
`D)  
`(1)   “Associating” As Used In The Asserted Claims Has Definite, Clear Meaning. .......... 20  
`(2)   This Claim Element Easily Meets The Standard For Definiteness .............................. 22  
`"(f) obtaining, by the computer system, second extracted features of a second electronic
`E)  
`work; (g) searching, by the computer system, for an identification of the second
`electronic work by comparing the second extracted features of the second electronic
`work with the first electronic data in the database using a non-exhaustive neighbor
`search; and (h) determining, by the computer system, that the second electronic work is
`not identified based on results of the searching step" .................................................... 24  
`VI.   CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 25  
`
`
`
`
`
` ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`
`Table Of Authorities
`
`CASES
`
`Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc.,
` 340 F.3d 1298 (Fed.Cir.2003)................................................................................................... 11
`
`Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chemicals Ltd.,
` 715 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................. 9, 20
`
`Bancorp Services, LLC v. Hartford Life Insurance Co.,
` 359 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................. 23
`
`DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com,
` 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22902 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2014) ........................................................... 14
`
`Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.,
`
` __ F.3d __, Case No. 2014-1254, slip op. at 8-10 (Fed. Cir, Mar. 10, 2015) .......................... 14
`
`Epos Technologies Ltd. v. Pegasus Technologies,
` 766 F. 3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................ 11
`
`In re: Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc.,
` Misc. No. 12-244, MDL 2354, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100448 (W.D. Pa. July 23, 2014) ..... 23
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
` 517 U.S. 370 (1996) .................................................................................................................. 11
`
`MeadWestVaco Corp. v. Rexam Beauty and Closures, Inc.,
` 731 F.3d 1258, 1270 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................. 23
`
`Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd.,
` 133 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 4 of 31
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
` 134 S. Ct. 2120, (2014) ............................................................................................................... 8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ........................................................................ 6, 7, 12
`
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.,
` 403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 23
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
` 547 U.S. _____, 135 S.Ct. 831 ___ (2015) (slip. op. at 6-7) ...................................................... 6
`
`Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co.,
` 642 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 5 of 31
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case presents several terms and phrases from the claims of the patents-in-suit for the
`
`Court to construe. This requires that the Court determine the ordinary and customary meaning of
`
`those terms to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the effective filing date
`
`of the patent application. This understanding is informed by both the context of the particular
`
`claim(s) where the term appears as well as the patent specification.
`
`Plaintiff Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (“Network-1”) proposes constructions that fit
`
`these basic principles and the many Federal Circuit decisions implementing and elucidating
`
`them. Defendants (collectively, “Google”) offer constructions that fail to accurately reflect the
`
`ordinary meaning of these claim terms to persons skilled in the art in an effort to advance
`
`invalidity or non-infringement positions. Additionally, for some terms, Google argues that they
`
`are indefinite. This assertion of indefiniteness is a species of patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 112, paragraph 2. Google bears a heavy burden under the most recent decisions from the
`
`Supreme Court of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the claims fail to inform
`
`persons skilled in the art of the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. Google cannot
`
`meet that burden here.
`
`Below we present first, a brief background of the patents-in-suit and the basic concepts
`
`involved. Next, we provide an overview of some of the key legal principles of claim
`
`construction as set forth by the Federal Circuit. Finally, we address the disputed claim
`
`construction issues in turn, demonstrating that the constructions offered by Network-1 conform
`
`to the standards set by the Federal Circuit, while the constructions offered by Google do not.
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`
`Professor Ingemar J. Cox, a Professor in the Department of Computer Science at the
`
`University College of London and at the University of Copenhagen is the inventor of the four
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 6 of 31
`
`patents-in-suit.1 Dr. Cox is the author of over 200 academic papers in the fields of information
`
`retrieval, digital watermarking, and video search identification techniques. Dr. Cox has served
`
`as Head of the Future Media Group and Director of Research in the Computer Science
`
`Department at University College London, a visiting professor at the Danish Technical
`
`University, distinguished visiting scholar at Pennsylvania State University, fellow of Computer
`
`Science at the NEC Research Institute, and principal investigator at the Robotics Principles
`
`Department of AT&T Bell Laboratories. Dr. Cox holds a Ph.D. from Oxford University in
`
`engineering science and a Bachelors of Science in electronics and computer science from
`
`University College London.
`
`In September, 2000, Dr. Cox filed a provisional patent application that ultimately led to
`
`the four patents-in-suit. The patents describe systems and methods for identifying media
`
`content. ‘988 Patent, Col. 5:39-55 (§ 4.0).2
`
`For example, the patents describe systems in which a database of reference works (such
`
`as known recordings of popular songs, or known videos of television programs) can be
`
`maintained. Col. 8:5-59 (§ 4.2.1.1.2). Each of these reference works can then be represented by
`
`a compact electronic representation – an electronic fingerprint of sorts. Col. 7:15-8:2 (§
`
`4.2.1.1.1).
`
`
`1 Exh. 1, US. Patent Nos. 8,010,988 (“’988 patent”); Exh. 2, 8,250,237 (“’237 patent”); Exh. 3,
`8,640,179 (“’179 patent”); Exh. 4, 8,656,441 (“’441 patent”). All references to "Exh." in this
`brief are exhibits appended to the Declaration of Dorian S. Berger in Support of Network-1
`Technologies Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief.
`2 All four of the patents-in-suit share the same patent specification, with minor modifications.
`For ease, citations to the specification throughout this brief will be to the ‘988 patent
`specification, though the same material is present in all four of the patents. The citations
`reference the section numbers used in the specification to facilitate ease of cross-reference.
`There are, however, slight differences in the specifications. The “Summary of the Invention”
`section of the specifications varies somewhat, and there is some additional discussion in the later
`‘237, ‘179, and ‘441 patents of certain references that were incorporated by reference in all of the
`specifications.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 7 of 31
`
`The patents also use terms like feature vector to describe such fingerprints. Id. The
`
`patents teach that in addition to these fingerprints, the database could also store information
`
`about actions to be performed that are connected or associated with each reference work. Col.
`
`8:5-59 (§ 4.2.1.1.2); Col. 23:35-51. For example, each time the video of a particular television
`
`program is shown to a viewer, additional information, like an advertisement, could be displayed
`
`to the viewer. Id.
`
`The patents contemplate a system where additional, unknown content needs to be
`
`compared (or “queried”) to the reference works to see if it matches any of the referenced works.
`
`See, e.g., Col. 6:30-7:10 (§ 4.2.1.1). For example, in an internet video system, the operator
`
`might wish to compare each new video uploaded by a user to the library of known references to
`
`see if it matches any of those known references. Such comparisons could help, for example, to
`
`identify duplicative videos, to limit copyright infringement by users of the system, and/or to
`
`facilitate better identification and description of videos on the system.
`
`The patents teach that the new work (the unknown video in this example) can be
`
`processed to create a compact electronic representation – a fingerprint – of the new unknown
`
`video. Col. 6:60-65 (§ 4.2.1.1). This fingerprint can then be compared to the database of
`
`fingerprints of the known references. Col. 6:66-7:3. To make such comparisons, the patents
`
`note that comparing the fingerprint for the new video to the fingerprints from all of the known
`
`references could be time consuming. Col. 8:60-9:55 (§ 4.2.1.1.3). This difficulty stems from
`
`two causes: first, the database of known references could be very large, and second, each
`
`comparison of two “fingerprints” can be computationally intensive by itself. The comparisons
`
`can be computationally intensive for two reasons: 1) the need to find close matches that are not
`
`necessarily identical, and 2) the need to compare potentially “high dimensional” representations.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 8 of 31
`
`Comparisons need to be looking not for exact matches, but for close matches because one
`
`wants the system to identify two pieces of content as matching even though they have small or
`
`subtle differences between them. The patents recognize that one problem to be addressed is that
`
`an incoming work may have noise or distortions in it. Col. 9:1-3 (§ 4.2.1.1.3). Thus it teaches
`
`using comparisons that look for close, but not necessarily exact matches. Col. 8:60-9:55 (§
`
`4.2.1.1.3). For example, an incoming video that contains a portion of a television program might
`
`have been recorded from a broadcast television signal that contains some static or “noise” in the
`
`signal that creates distortions, or it might have been recorded by someone using a video camera
`
`pointed at a television on which the program was being displayed, or it might contain a clip that
`
`was only a portion of the television program (like a five minute clip). In each of these cases,
`
`since the video contains the reference television program (or a part of it), designers would want
`
`the system to identify the uploaded video as a match to the reference, even though it was not
`
`perfectly identical. To determine whether the uploaded video is a match to the reference, the
`
`comparisons would need to determine not just that the two fingerprints are different, but also
`
`some measure of how different they are. Designers can decide how different two things have to
`
`be before they are not identified as a match. Col. 9:39-9:55 (§ 4.2.1.1.3).
`
`The individual comparisons also could be complicated by the high dimensionality of the
`
`“fingerprints” (the compact electronic representations of the works). The patent makes reference
`
`to this issue of a “high dimensional feature space.” Col. 9:23-24. Fingerprints need enough data
`
`in them to be sufficiently complex that each fingerprint represents the underlying content (the
`
`primary work) with a low likelihood of two different references having the same fingerprint. See
`
`Karypis Decl., ¶ 23. To achieve sufficient complexity that the fingerprint actually represents the
`
`primary work (the original audio or video), it is often necessary to use multiple dimensions to
`
`represent the work. This might be achieved by capturing many different types of information
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 9 of 31
`
`about the work. In the context of a song, one might collect the tempo (beats per minute), the
`
`key, the range from the highest note to the lowest in the song, the number of notes in the song,
`
`the total duration of the song, etc. Each of these can be considered another “dimension” of the
`
`data. Karypis Decl., ¶ 34. Similarly one could capture snapshots of particular values (for
`
`example the pitch and intensity values) at multiple times during the song. Then this data could
`
`be used as the fingerprint for comparison to the database of reference works (with similar
`
`fingerprints). Id. ¶¶ 29-32.
`
`If the uploaded work matches one of the reference works, then the system can recognize
`
`that the same action that is associated with the reference work can also be associated with the
`
`uploaded work. Col. 9:57-10:40 (§ 4.2.1.1.4). For example, if the system provided that an
`
`advertisement was to be shown with the reference work, the advertisement can also be shown
`
`with the now-identified uploaded work. The patents describe an example in which the incoming
`
`work is an advertisement for Ford Motor Company, and the associated action may be to direct
`
`the viewer to a local Ford dealership. Col. 24:23-27.
`
` The patent specification contains a flow diagram that shows the basic process described
`
`above in Figure 1, reproduced below:
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 10 of 31
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
`A) Claim Interpretation Focuses On The Meaning Of Terms To Persons Of Ordinary
`Skill In The Art
`Patent Claim interpretation is a question of law, often with the need for subsidiary fact-
`
`finding. See Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 547 U.S. _____, 135 S.Ct. 831 ___
`
`(2015) (slip. op. at 6-7). The Federal Circuit explains that “[t]he inquiry into how a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art understands a claim term provides an objective baseline from which to
`
`begin claim interpretation.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc). The Court went on to explain that “the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to
`
`read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 11 of 31
`
`appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. Thus, the
`
`Court’s task in claim construction is to determine how a person of skill in the art at the time of
`
`the patent (i.e., the priority date of the application – in this case September 2000) would interpret
`
`a disputed term, having considered the patent specification and prosecution history: “It is the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention through whose eyes the claims are construed.
`
`Such person is deemed to read the words used in the patent documents with an understanding of
`
`their meaning in the field, and to have knowledge of any special meaning and usage in the field.
`
`The inventor’s words that are used to describe the invention – the inventor’s lexicography – must
`
`be understood and interpreted by the court as they would be understood and interpreted by a
`
`person in that field of technology. Thus the court starts the decision-making process by
`
`reviewing the same resources as would that person, viz., the patent specification and the
`
`prosecution history.” id. (quoting Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473,
`
`1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`The patent specification and prosecution history, collectively considered “intrinsic
`
`evidence”, are the first source for claim construction and its importance has been emphasized by
`
`the Federal Circuit. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Courts also may also, when necessary, consider
`
`extrinsic evidence, which “consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history,
`
`including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Id. (internal
`
`citations omitted).
`B) Claims Are Definite Unless They Fail To Inform Those Skilled In The Art Of The
`Scope Of The Invention With Reasonable Certainty
`In addition to the interpretation issues presented by some terms, Google asserts that some
`
`of the claims are invalid for indefiniteness. The Supreme Court recently held that the claims of a
`
`patent are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 only if the “claims, read in light of the specification
`
`delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 12 of 31
`
`skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134
`
`S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). The definiteness requirement “mandates clarity, while recognizing
`
`that absolute precision is unattainable.” Id. at 2129. Definiteness is to be evaluated from the
`
`perspective of someone skilled in the relevant art and, in assessing definiteness, claims are to be
`
`read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history. Nautilus, 134 S. Ct. at 2128.
`
`Defendants bear the burden of proving their indefiniteness defense by clear and convincing
`
`"extracted features"
`
`"extracting features"
`
`evidence. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`IV. AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`The parties have reached agreement on the construction of the following claim terms:
`
`Construction
`Claim Term
`"compact electronic representation" "Extracted features, or information derived from
`extracted features."
`"Electronic data derived from a work itself, as opposed
`to from information added or appended to the work."
`"Deriving electronic data from a work itself, as opposed
`to from information added or appended to the work."
`"Extracted features, or information derived from
`extracted features."
`"A search whose execution time scales with a less than
`linear relationship to the size of the data set to be
`searched, assuming computing power is held constant."
`
`"feature vector"
`
`"sublinear" [search]
`
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`V.
`
`The following are the claim terms as to which the parties offer differing constructions,
`
`requiring the Court’s interpretation.
`
`
`A) "neighbor" "near neighbor"3
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`"A close, but not necessarily exact or the
`closest, match of a feature vector, compact
`electronic representation, or set of extracted
`
`3 Cited in '988 patent: 15, 17, 31, 32, 51, 52; '237 patent: 25, 26, 27; '179 patent: 13, 24, 34, 35;
`'441 patent: 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 22, 23, 25, 26 (bold indicates an independent claim).
`8
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`"A close, but not necessarily exact or the
`closest, match of one feature vector,
`compact electronic representation, or set of
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 13 of 31
`
`features to another, that has a distance or
`difference that falls within a defined threshold
`of a query."
`(1) Network-1’s Definition Comes Directly From The Patent Specification.
`“There is a heavy presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and
`
`extracted features to another."
`
`customary meaning.” Aventis Pharm. Inc. v. Amino Chemicals Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013). The terms “neighbor” and “near neighbor” are terms of art in the area of the patents-
`
`in-suit that are used interchangeably in the patents.4 The parties agree on most of the
`
`construction: “A close, but not necessarily exact or the closest, match of a feature vector,
`
`compact electronic representation, or set of extracted features to another.” Defendants, however,
`
`ask the Court to exclude a critical portion of the definition of these terms as they are used in the
`
`art and as they are used in the patents-in-suit. Network-1 offers a definition that includes this
`
`critical additional portion: “that has a distance or difference that falls within a defined threshold
`
`of a query.” Network-1’s correct definition clarifies what constitutes a “close” match. As
`
`explained below, the patents make clear that a reference that is outside a threshold distance or
`
`difference from the query cannot be called a match.
`
`The patents’ specification describes “neighbor” and “near neighbor” searches as
`
`determining a match (or lack of match) based on some threshold. They use the word threshold at
`
`least seven times in the specification to describe how matches are identified. See e.g., ‘988
`
`patent 7:1-3, 14:25-27 (“If a match, or a match within a predetermined threshold is determined,
`
`then the associated work identifier is read.”); Id. 9:9-13, 21:18-22 (“A threshold can be
`
`established, usually based on the required false positive and false negative rates, such that if the
`
`correlation output exceeds this threshold, then the extracted and known vectors are said to
`
`match.”); Id. 22:20-22 (“if the distance between the query and the nearest neighbor exceeds a
`
`threshold, then they are considered not to match.”). In general, the specification teaches that one
`
`4 The parties agree that the terms “neighbor” and “near neighbor” should have the same
`construction.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 14 of 31
`
`use of the invention is to identify unknown electronic works (such as music or video files). Col.
`
`7:17-20 (§ 4.2.1.1.1). The specification explains that extracted features or feature vectors can be
`
`compared to known vectors in a database and that “[i]f the extracted vector ‘matches’ a known
`
`vector in the content identification database, then the work has been identified.” Col. 9:39-41.
`
`The specification goes on to explain the risk of a match being incorrect – a false positive error.
`
`Id. This false positive error can be reduced at the expense of an increased false negative error.
`
`Col. 9:43-46. Thus, the specification recognizes that the acceptable rate of false positives and
`
`false negatives can be tuned by adjusting the threshold values. Col. 9:9-13.
`
`The claims of the patents-in-suit make clear that they entail identifying electronic works
`
`by finding matches through searches for a neighbor or a near neighbor. Both sides agree that
`
`these terms should be construed to have the same meaning. As described in the specification, to
`
`know that a neighbor is a match, it must be within a threshold distance or difference of the query
`
`(the unknown work to be identified). A reference that is outside a threshold distance from the
`
`query cannot be called a match.
`
`Google suggested during the meet and confer process that it disagreed with Network-1’s
`
`proposed construction due to the presence of dependent claims like Claim 16 of the ‘988 patent.
`
`The patent claims identify a “fixed radius” as something within the category of a “neighbor” in,
`
`for example, ‘988 patent dependent claim 16 (identification is based on a non-exhaustive search
`
`identifying a neighbor within a fixed radius). Although “neighbor” and “near neighbor”
`
`contemplate the use of some distance or difference threshold, that threshold need not be a fixed
`
`radius as Google incorrectly suggests. While a search algorithm can be designed to utilize a
`
`fixed radius threshold, it could also be designed so that the threshold is variable for each query.
`
`This variability allows for the difference threshold to be adjusted, for example, based on the
`
`characteristics of the query (the unknown work to be identified). As just one example, in the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 15 of 31
`
`context of analyzing unknown audio or video samples, an algorithm could utilize different
`
`thresholds to define a neighbor or near neighbor depending upon the amount of noise present in
`
`the query sample. Karypis Decl., ¶¶ 33, 42-44.
`(2) Defendants’ Proposed Construction Is Inconsistent With The Preferred
`Embodiment And The Dependant Claims.
`
`Defendants’ proposed construction of “neighbor” and “near neighbor” search omits the
`
`phrase, “that has a distance or difference that falls within a defined threshold of a query." As
`
`discussed above, a preferred embodiment of the patents-in-suit involves searching for a neighbor
`
`or a near neighbor to identify a work. See, e.g., Col. 8:60-9:55. Such identification requires the
`
`use of a distance or difference threshold to determine if a comparison yields a match or not. See,
`
`e.g. Col. 7:1-3; 9:9-13. Without this additional clarification of the definition, Defendants'
`
`proposed construction would yield a claim that is inconsistent with the preferred embodiment,
`
`and therefore must be rejected. See Epos Technologies Ltd. v. Pegasus Technologies, 766 F. 3d
`
`1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (reversing district court claim construction which did not encompass
`
`preferred embodiment: "[A] claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment ... is
`
`rarely, if ever correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.") (quoting
`
`Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed.Cir.2003))
`
`(citations omitted). Without a threshold, every record in the database could, theoretically, be
`
`considered a “neighbor” / “near neighbor.” If this were the case, every search would, by
`
`definition, identify a “neighbor” / “near neighbor,” but without any connection to actually
`
`matching the primary works as claimed in the patents. Google’s proposed construction fails to
`
`preserve the patents’ internal coherence and thus should be rejected. See Markman v. Westview
`
`Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390 (1996) (claims should be construed to “preserve the patent’s
`
`internal coherence”).
`
`Google’s proposed construction also conflicts with the fact that the patents and claims
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-02396-PGG-SN Document 63 Filed 03/27/15 Page 16 of 31
`
`contemplate that for some searches, no match will be identified. See, e.g., Col. 9:53-55 (“there is
`
`the case where the observed work is not present in the database.”). The use of thresholds allows
`
`the system to return a “no match” result as the specification contemplates is possible. If there is
`
`no threshold so that any record in the database could be a neighbor, the system would always
`
`return some match, even if far from the query. Claim 24 of the ‘179 patent and claims 23 and 26
`
`of the ‘441 patent expressly claim a search where no match is identified. Claim 24 of the ‘179
`
`patent, for example, recites using a “non-exhaustive neighbor search” and, based on that search,
`
`determining that a work “is not identified.” Google’s proposed construction conflicts with this
`
`usage in the claims. The Federal Circuit instructs that “the usage of a term in one claim can
`
`often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Here,
`
`the “neighbor” terms are used in claims that recite performing searches where no match is
`
`identified. Google’s proposed definition conflicts with these claims, confirming that Network-
`
`1’s construction is correct.
`(3) Extrinsic Evidence Confirms Network-1’s Construction.
`Network-1’s proposed construction is confirmed by the usage and understanding of
`
`persons of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Professor Karypis confirms that,
`
`at the time of the invention, “neighbor” and “near neighbor” were terms of art that were well
`
`known in the art. Karypis Decl., ¶¶ 48-53. Thus, he explains, one skilled in the art would have
`
`understood the terms “neighbor” and “near neighbor” in the context of searching methodologies
`
`to mean locating “a close, but not necessarily exact or the closest, match” that has a “distance or
`
`difference that falls within a defined threshold of a query.” Karypis Decl., ¶ 41.
`
`This understanding is confirmed by usages in the literat